June 19th, 2014
On July 13, Thousands Will Rally to Oppose Cove Point Plant in Maryland
By Wenonah Hauter
On Sunday, July 13, thousands of environmental advocates will gather in downtown Washington, D.C., to oppose Dominion Resources’ Cove Point LNG export facility, a project that is part of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission’s (FERC’s) aggressive push to expand fracking in the Marcellus Shale region. FERC will decide this summer whether or not to approve the proposal to build the Cove Point facility within one mile of 360 homes. On July 13, we have one more chance to urge FERC to stop putting the interests of oil and gas companies above public health and local communities.
U.S. citizens have watched the oil and gas industry lobby quickly spread their influence across the nation, from Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas and Colorado in the West to Pennsylvania, Ohio, New York, North Carolina and Maryland in the East. But even as the industry promises Americans that fracking for shale gas will give consumers an affordable energy future—energy security, they call it—they have been busy carving out plans to export most of it overseas in the form of liquefied natural gas (LNG). The Obama administration has made their intentions clear: the U.S. will begin exporting LNG to nations in Asia and Europe, sacrificing the well-being of our communities to the oil and gas industry’s relentless thirst for profits.
Many of the political moves in Maryland meant to ensure fracking becomes a reality within state borders resembles the playbook we’ve seen time and again from the oil and gas industry. When the oil and gas industry discovered shale deposits in Maryland, they immediately exaggerated how much natural gas these deposits were present, promised major economic impacts, and understated how many of the state’s cities will one day have drilling rigs. While Governor O’Malley and leaders in the state legislature have told Marylanders that fracking wouldn’t be approved until studies proved that it was safe, the governor’s own commission has already begun drafting the prelude to fracking regulations before the completion of three promised public health and economic impact studies. Read the full article…
June 18th, 2014
By Sydney Baldwin
You’ve heard about antibiotic-resistance: that scary scenario when someone is sick with an infection, but the medicine that’s supposed to treat it doesn’t work. Major health organizations around the world warn that antibiotics are quickly losing their effectiveness, and pharmaceutical companies aren’t acting fast enough to create new ones. What’s scary is that, according to our researchers’ analysis of Center for Disease Control and Prevention data, over 20 percent of antibiotic-resistant infections are linked to food.
Even if you don’t eat meat or live near a factory farm, you’re still susceptible. Read on to learn why we’re all at risk to contract an antibiotic-resistant infection. Then tell Congress to stand up for the public, not corporations, by introducing tighter regulations that will help stop the misuse of antibiotics on factory farms.
1. Exactly how do factory farms misuse antibiotics?
Factory farms give animals low doses of antibiotics to compensate for overcrowded, filthy conditions that lead to disease. In fact, 80 percent of the antibiotics sold in the U.S. are used in agriculture, but not necessarily because the animals ingesting them are sick. Unfortunately, that’s making us sick.
This practice, called nontherapeutic use, creates the perfect stew for bacteria that are resistant to antibiotics to thrive and spread. These superbugs – antibiotic-resistant bacteria bred on factory farms – end up in food and in the environment, which puts everyone at risk, regardless of where you live or what you eat. Read the full article…
June 17th, 2014
By Mitch Jones
This Wednesday the Senate’s Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution and Civil Justice will be holding a vote on a Constitutional amendment that would overturn Citizens United.
Citizens United opened the door to an obscene amount of corporate dollars flowing into political campaigns. The case had three major components that have made it nearly impossible to keep corporate money out of politics…
- It found that free speech rights are about the speech, not the speaker (in other words, it doesn’t matter who’s speaking, but that speaking is taking place.)
- The case reconfirmed the notion of corporate personhood.
- Since political speech is the most important First Amendment right, constraint of free speech must meet strict scrutiny.
So, Citizens United basically allowed corporate financing of elections to be protected as free speech. This is money spent by people like the Koch Brothers and Sheldon Adelson trying to buy elections to ensure they have a Congress and a President that is willing to do their bidding.
The only way to ensure that we get rid of this terrible ruling is to amend the Constitution. That’s why Senator Tom Udall (D-NM) and 43 of his Senate colleagues have introduced S.J. Res. 19, a constitutional amendment that would grant Congress and the states the power to regulate the raising and spending of money in federal and state elections. It’s a simple fix to a major problem.
Send your senators an email and ask them to support the Udall Amendment.
By Jo Miles
You’ve probably heard about the rise of antibiotic-resistant infections: bacteria that have grown increasingly resistant to medicine. It’s a serious threat… yet not many people realize that factory farms are a huge part of the problem.
Check out the comic below to see how factory farms are putting everyone’s health at risk. Then tell your lawmakers to stop the misuse of antibiotics on factory farms.
June 12th, 2014
By Eve Mitchell
As widely predicted, the European Council agreed this morning to the compromise proposal on so-called national “opt outs” for GM crops. What happens next will be interesting indeed.
Luxembourg and Belgium abstained from the vote. Every other EU Member State supported the deal, but that doesn’t give a full picture of the situation by any means.
Around half of the Member States said outright they would ban GM crops or alluded that they would. Others noted the difficulties yet to be faced in agreeing coexistence rules needed to protect non-GM agriculture from GM contamination, including across international boundaries in our relatively small countries. None dismissed the delicacy of the next stage – securing the agreement with the EU Parliament. One speaker called the emerging agreement “historic,” and given the issue was first broached in 2009, I suppose that’s true to a point. More than one country called for the revision of the ten-year-old regulations of GMOs, and others the need to update and revise how Europe conducts its risk assessments of GMOs (as unanimously called for by this same Council way back in 2008 – pdf). That’s a big can of worms indeed. Several speakers reminded the Council of the strong public opposition to GM food and crops back home. At the end of the meeting, Italy said that the agreement “demonstrates the unity of Europe”.
I heard a lot of things during this meeting, but unanimity wasn’t one of them.
So on we go to that next stage, where a brand new Parliament will have to take on a highly controversial issue that touches on food production and safety, public health, international trade, environmental protection, national sovereignty, democratic accountability and corporate control of agriculture all in one go. Good luck to them. Good luck to us. We will be relying on the countries who signalled disquiet with any number of issues in this deal (while agreeing to it anyway, in the spirit of cooperation of course), to insist those issues are clearly addressed and real answers provided. The pressure being applied will make those lines hard to hold.
If the Parliament and Council can someday wrestle an actual agreement out of all that, we’ll then have to see if the biotech industry plays ball and permits any bans to stand. If anything like half of EU countries ban GM crops in all or parts of their territories it will give the industry a pretty big headache of multilingual regulations to adhere to across what is supposed to be a Single Market. That nagging issue of coexistence will be there, as well as liability for any damage done by their products, particularly if that damage occurs across international borders into areas banning the crops in the first place. Since the chief GM lobby group EuropaBio has already put out a tetchy statement of disappointment saying, “This deal shows the lack of willingness of the EU institutions and Member States to correctly implement the current regulatory framework for GMO approvals they had decided upon themselves,” it isn’t at all clear the rules of the game will be agreed by all the players. Then again the industry has the WTO red card in its back pocket they can use to challenge any ban or start a trade war. Mere citizens have no such backstop.
June 11th, 2014
By Wenonah Hauter
Wenonah Hauter, executive director of Food & Water Watch
Updated on June 11.
The FDA is currently turning a blind eye to the thousands of pets that have been sickened or killed thanks to pet treats imported from China. It has basically rolled over to the biotech industry in a long and drawn out process over genetically engineered salmon, which if approved, would be the first transgenic animal to enter the food supply—the effects of which have not been studied in humans. It’s done nothing to deal with the 30-year crisis concerning the misuse of antibiotics on factory farms.
But don’t worry—they are on the case when it comes to barring artisanal cheesemakers from using wood in the process of aging cheese. Rather than concentrating on the food safety crisis caused by the giant food processors, they are focusing on the cleanability of equipment used in making artisanal cheese. In the process, the FDA could end the tried and true traditional practices that have been used by cheese makers around the world for centuries.
Yes, that’s the latest head-scratcher from the federal agency led by Michael Taylor, former Monsanto executive and standard-bearer for the industrial food interests at our nation’s leading food safety authority. Cheese makers and people who want a local food economy are rightfully fighting mad. This decision is like rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic: when it comes to health threats from food, the FDA has much bigger fish to fry. It could be addressing the major prevailing public health crisis posed by the misuse of antibiotics on factory farms—a public health threat that experts have cautioned against for three decades. Or, it could turn its attention to the serious food safety issues posed by food imports from countries with weak food safety standards—which will become even more problematic if trade deals like the Trans-Pacific Partnership are put into force.
Any rule that promotes processed, industrial food (like Velveeta) over handcrafted foods is not something we should support. Take action now to tell the FDA to get their priorities straight. Their limited resources should be used to address the major food supply safety problems, not going after artisanal food producers.
UPDATE: The FDA may be rethinking their efforts to stop cheese makers from using the methods they’ve perfected over centuries, but we have to keep up the pressure because their traditional ways of making cheese are still under threat. Sign the petition here.
June 10th, 2014
By Patrick Woodall
After several weeks of musical merger chairs, the dust finally settled this weekend leaving Tyson Foods the winner in a bidding war for Hillshire Brands. The nation’s biggest meat and poultry company offered one billion dollars more than it offered a week and a half ago and the deal is now worth about $8.5 billion. The other bidder, Pilgrim’s Pride, withdrew its bid, and the original deal for Hillshire to buy food manufacturer Pinnacle Foods will be scrubbed to pave the way for the Tyson takeover after Hillshire pays Pinnacle a $163 million “breakup” fee. Read the full article…
June 9th, 2014
By: Elizabeth Nussbaumer
Food & Water Watch, along with allies like the Institute for Policy Studies, is raising the alarm: offsets, cap-and-trade and the new EPA proposed power plant rule will not achieve the emissions reductions necessary to prevent severe repercussions from climate change. If you pay attention, the warning signs have already begun.
A closer look at the EPA’s proposed rule to reduce GHG emissions from coal-fired power plants shows that it relies heavily on fuel switching to achieve reductions. It promotes natural gas as an energy alternative to coal. But this in turn supports fracking — the highly polluting and dangerous process of extracting natural gas — leaving us in no better position, if not worse off. Substituting one fossil fuel for another changes nothing. Read the full article…
By Tim Schwab
It’s not easy being a responsible consumer these days. You want to avoid GMO foods, but the biotech industry has used its political influence to guarantee that these foods are sold without a label. You want to avoid nano-pesticides in your toilet, but you’re left to contend with the mixed messages from the PR departments of Corporate America. Read the full article…
June 6th, 2014
Ohio Organizer Alison Auciello with her sons.
By Emily Carroll
Being a Food & Water Watch organizer isn’t an easy job. You need to take some really complicated issues, like the misuse of antibiotics on factory farms, and harness the energy of people passionate enough that they want to step up and make a difference. You need to be “on” at all times and ready to jump to action at a moment’s notice. Organizing is certainly fun, but not easy! And when you add two children into the mix, life becomes anything but a cakewalk.
So I wanted to take a moment to highlight the incredible work of one of our mothers on staff: Alison Auciello, our Ohio-based organizer. When Alison isn’t driving around the great state of Ohio meeting with community groups, emceeing rallies against fracking waste, or helping another city pass a ban on waste injection wells, she can be found in Cincinnati with her two sons, Jonah and Elijah.
In the unlikely event that Alison’s passion for environmental justice, patience and kindness don’t jump out at you when you first meet her, these qualities will make themselves known the moment you meet her boys. Jonah and Elijah love to accompany Alison to marches and rallies where they help distribute flyers and they are more than happy to talk your ear off about why fracking is bad—a truly impressive feat for any five-year-old or seven-year-old (presuming, of course, neither of them feel shy that day). Read the full article…